Key result
Continuous suture technique for wound closure resulted in a similar rate of pacemaker pocket infection compared to interrupted sutures (1.55% vs 1.45%).
Why the study?
Interrupted sutures are thought to prevent pacemaker pocket infection better than continuous sutures, but whether suture technique correlates with wound infection rate remains unclear.
Does continuous suture technique reduce pacemaker pocket infection compared to interrupted suture technique in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation?
Cohort (n=2,200)
Does continuous suture technique reduce pacemaker pocket infection compared to interrupted suture technique in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.55% vs 1.45%
The choice between continuous and interrupted suture techniques for pacemaker wound closure does not significantly affect the rate of pocket infection.
Suture technique does not influence CIED pocket infection rates; leaves open whether alternative closure methods merit prospective evaluation.
OBJECTIVE: The incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is usually <2%. The interrupted suture technique is thought to be better than a continuous suture in order to prevent pacemaker pocket infection. The aim of this study was to determine if there was a correlation between the suture techniques and the pacemaker wound infection rate. METHODS: The data of 2200 patients from the 5-year period of 2011 to 2016 were studied. There were 1096 patients in the study group and 1104 patients in the control group. Continuous sutures were used in the study group and interrupted sutures were used in the control group. RESULTS: Pacemaker pocket infection occurred in 33 patients (1.5%). Seventeen patients in the study group and 16 patients in the control group developed a pacemaker pocket infection. A pacemaker pocket hematoma was seen in 54 patients in the study group (4.9%) and 50 patients in the control group (4.5%). CONCLUSION: Use of the continuous or interrupted suture technique for wound closure had no significant role in the prevention of pacemaker pocket infection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goutam Datta (2019) conducted a cohort in Pacemaker implantation (n=2,200). Continuous suture technique vs. Interrupted suture technique was evaluated on Pacemaker pocket infection. Continuous suture technique for wound closure resulted in a similar rate of pacemaker pocket infection compared to interrupted sutures (1.55% vs 1.45%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: